Ms Celene Craig:

The BAI supports the categories of online harm that have been included within the general scheme. We consider that these constitute some of the most egregious harms. We support the idea that online users should be protected from such harms while they are using online services. We have a small concern. In general, we believe the definitions need to be readily usable in practice. In the first instance, that will involve definitions that can be readily applied by the online platforms, which can decide if material is in breach of the statute. It is very important that they are usable, including at scale given the number of complaints and concerns that may be expressed and brought to any one platform.

We have concerns around the requirement to conclude intent. We see there may be some practical difficulties with this, particularly where all of the context may not be known. We are also keen to state that the real intention is not necessarily to assign blame to the person who may have caused the harm but, rather, to insure that a user is protected from harm, particularly a child. In a case where a child is being cyberbullied by another child or other children, it may be difficult to conclude there was intention. Nevertheless, the definitions as they are applied should be capable of determining that this has the potential to cause harm and, therefore, merits consideration or removal in that context.